USATF XC Club Nationals – Observations

Strawmen. Weak sauce. My contentions have been chiefly without respect to your running ability. You are the one who mentioned that your running ability is not attractive to anyone recruiting for a team. I simply take that to be true. Restating something that is taken to be a fact shouldn't be viewed as a personal attack, immature or otherwise. To the contrary, you're insecure if you use yourself as an example and then can't take legit criticisms of said example like a man. If you have the level of involvement in a club that elevated you to its presidency (among other roles) then you're goddamn right it's your responsibility to recruit competitive teams for that club. Whose else should it be? If you don't believe in your club enough to wear their colors any time you race then you're just taking up space. Fred Vanhala could show you a thing or ten.

Fact? Nope, when you use your contributions to justify your choices and to justify your complaints then it's perfectly valid to question them. If you don't like getting this type of attention then stop trying to draw attention to yourself.

"By what rational metric? What reasoning supports the notion that competition will improve at clubs if anyone can belong to any club in any association regardless of the location of their residency?"

I think eliminating a barrier to entry would improve competition. In my own personal case that I mentioned earlier in the thread (group of old college teammates living various places), this residency requirement is keeping me from showing up. I'm no superstar, but I'm confident that if we ran a relay at club outdoors we'd certainly at least add quality depth to the field, if not challenge for the win.

Now you can say "well, if you want to run there so bad, why don't you find people in a club in your area?"

Well, because I don't feel like it/want to. I want to run with who I want to run with, and I doubt my situation is all that unique.

I guess I can see the argument about keeping some national Nike team out of the meet, but it seems like there could be another regulation to handle that (involving corporate sponsorship or something), rather than a blanket residency requirement.

I don't know, I just think of some group of people who "met" and started talking on the Letsrun message boards or something wanted to stay in touch about training and run as a team, what does that really hurt? A club is basically a support group, and whether that support comes in the form of a flesh and blood training partner running next to you, or just someone you talk to who keeps you motivated to get out the door, what's the difference?

Is it really such a barrier to entry? Pathetic and sad, yes, but it wouldn't stop you from running at the meet if you honestly wanted to. It's like people want to fight this injustice on the off chance that a handful of creepy dweebs who can make friends on the internet yet not where they live can compete as a team. What happened to shutting off the computer, going out your door and meeting your neighbors?

where are you from?

Red Glare wrote:

Is it really such a barrier to entry? Pathetic and sad, yes, but it wouldn't stop you from running at the meet if you honestly wanted to. It's like people want to fight this injustice on the off chance that a handful of creepy dweebs who can make friends on the internet yet not where they live can compete as a team. What happened to shutting off the computer, going out your door and meeting your neighbors?

Well first, I'm not fighting it. I was just offering an opinion on why the rule hurt competition (btw, there were only 3 teams in the 4x8 and 4 in the DMR last year at club usatfs).

Next, personally, I was hoping to run with people I used to run with, not folks I met on the internet. That was just an example.

Finally, I HAVE somehow managed to close my laptop just long enough to make friends and "meet my neighbors." Just so happens I haven't come across many non-HS or college runners in my area who can run under 2:05 for 800m, let alone under 2:00 or 1:55, or whatever. Mid distance kind of dies after college.

Not sure why you're getting so hostile about it, I didn't mean to rile you up. I'll just go back to being a pathetic and sad dweeb now. Oh wait...you're posting on letsrun on a saturday night too. Hey, uh...do you wanna maybe run a 4x8 at USATFs next year? I just can't seem to find a team around here...

I wasn't being hostile, your defensive attitude made you think so. If you don't like the running scene in your area you can always move like Keystone did. Oh wait...

hardset nipples wrote: My contentions have been chiefly without respect to your running ability. You are the one who mentioned that your running ability is not attractive to anyone recruiting for a team.

Oh please just give it up. You haven't made a valid or mature point this whole thread. This isn't third grade. Go back, read, learn, apply some logic, but don't come back until you have because you're getting pretty tedious.

I bring up my personal experience to apply context, and you go off on it like I made you have your first period. Let's review, I make a rational point based on logistics and here's your points:

"Or are you just far too socially awkward to make new friends and establish new relationships? "

"Please do everyone a favor and excuse your aloof self from this type of discussion from now on."

"It's pretty clear you think you're above racing with any NC team."

"Especially since he'd be far from the best runner for any but the worst clubs in NC."

So Mr Nipples, since I'm curious what those comments have to do with the topic at hand, exactly at what point did you have a valid argument in this discussion? I've made a argument based on the facts of the situation, you seem to have your panties in a wad about something and haven't posted a single comment that isn't some whiny little personal vendetta. If you think the geography rule should stay because teams should train and race together all the time that's a valid argument. You just don't seem to be willing to make that argument.

Here's a hint: I've stated I don't like the rule because I don't feel it accomplishes it's intended goal and basically creates a PITA when one isn't necessary. You've stated you like the rule because you think I'm a slow runner without leadership qualities that doesn't contribute to their club. I've only disagreed with the contribute part. Maybe if you concentrated your efforts on the actual discussion, i.e. geography (remember that?) you'll score more debate points. Timeline also has value so maybe you should pay attention to that too.

Another hint just to be sociable; I never used my contributions to justify my choices. Read again and maybe you'll get it. I mentioned my contributions specifically because you claimed I never made any. If you don't want to know about me don't ask and I'll be happy to oblige, but I'll be damned if I'll let some petty character assassination sit there unanswered.

Red Glare wrote:

I wasn't being hostile, your defensive attitude made you think so. If you don't like the running scene in your area you can always move like Keystone did. Oh wait...

Ok, I guess I misinterpreted the "pathetic and sad" part as some sort of attack. Guess it wasn't, my bad.

And I really can't imagine ever moving because of the "running scene," but yes, I do have that freedom. God bless America.

the magic rat wrote:

Well first, I'm not fighting it. I was just offering an opinion on why the rule hurt competition (btw, there were only 3 teams in the 4x8 and 4 in the DMR last year at club usatfs).

It's really hard for clubs not local to Club Track Nationals to send a big enough team to fill all of the relays. Having all-star clubs won't change that. The same clubs would have about the same amount of money, they would just be sending a few better athletes to track and XC nationals.

It's not like there are even 8 corporate sponsors out there who would want to put an all-star team together so we can fill all 8 lanes at Club Track Nationals. Instead, you would just have the same clubs that dominate getting better, and the smaller clubs disappearing.

Dude, you're aware where we're posting, right? And yeah, on a Saturday night? And you know how it looks to say "I want to run a relay with some buddies I know only through Letsrun," right? If that's not you that you're talking about then, no, it's not some sort of attack.

Red Glare wrote:Is it really such a barrier to entry? Pathetic and sad, yes, but it wouldn't stop you from running at the meet if you honestly wanted to. It's like people want to fight this injustice on the off chance that a handful of creepy dweebs who can make friends on the internet yet not where they live can compete as a team. What happened to shutting off the computer, going out your door and meeting your neighbors?

Let's dial this down a notch or two. It's not an "injustice" or crime against humanity, etc. I don't see an argument being made for not running with your neighbors or teams training together or local competition or anything like that. My personal point is doesn't it make sense for such things to be mandatory and the existing rules don't accomplish that goal anyway.

If there were two Hanson like teams in every state I would think that would be fantastic, I just wouldn't consider that a valid reason to say a group of guys out of college couldn't run together as a team without all living in someone's basement. Wouldn't it make for a better team to have people that want to race together as opposed to having people that have to race together because of proximity?

Sure, having a Hanson's like scenario where you have a group that not only wants to be there but specifically chose to be there is ideal. The question is should that scenario be required in the rulebook. Surely there are more effective ways to discourage teams that appear out of thin air then vanish after the meet other than saying everyone has to live in one association.

polevaultpower wrote:

It's not like there are even 8 corporate sponsors out there who would want to put an all-star team together so we can fill all 8 lanes at Club Track Nationals. Instead, you would just have the same clubs that dominate getting better, and the smaller clubs disappearing.

Yea, track nationals is a whole different story. Quite frankly I can't see a scenario under the current structure where smaller clubs would ever prosper there because the point structure requires covering a lot of events. The way it works now is whoever can get the most people there regardless of talent will win and the advantage will go to the sprint oriented clubs. That's probably OK because it's not like the sprint clubs make a showing at club cross.

Keith Stone wrote:Surely there are more effective ways to discourage teams that appear out of thin air then vanish after the meet other than saying everyone has to live in one association.

I don't think this is as big of an issue as people here make it out to be. Here are the top 5 teams from the past 4 years. Which of these teams appeared out of thin air and vanished after the meet was over?

2010

Women

1 McMillan Elite

2 Boulder Running Company/a

3 Hansons-Brooks Distance P

4 Running Republic of Bould

5 New Balance Boston

Men

1 McMillan Elite

2 Hansons-Brooks Distance P

3 Boston Athletic Associati

4 Team Indiana Elite

5 Pacers/Brooks Racing Team

2009

Women

1 BoulderRunCo/adidas A

2 McMillan Elite

3 Asics Aggie Rc

4 New York Ac A

5 Runohio Racing Team

Men

1 Zap Fitness

2 BoulderRunCo/adidas A

3 InternationalCityRtc

4 Asics Aggie Rc

5 Transports adidas Rt

2008

Women

1 BoulderRunCo/adidas A

2 New Balance Boston

3 Boston Athletic Associati

4 New York Athletic Club

5 Runohio Racing Team

3 Asics Aggie Rc

4 New York Ac A

Men

1 McMillan Elite

2 Bowerman Athletic Club

3 Hansons-Brooks Distance P

4 BoulderRunCo/adidas A

5 Asics Aggie Rc

2007

Women

1 Run Ohio Racing Team

2 New Balance Boston

3 Boulder Run Co/adidas

4 Boston Athletic Assn

5 See Jane Run

Men

1 Zap Fitness

2 Team Indiana Elite

3 Asics Aggie R C

4 Transports Adidas R T

5 Run Flagstaff Mizuno

Keith Stone wrote:

Yea, track nationals is a whole different story. Quite frankly I can't see a scenario under the current structure where smaller clubs would ever prosper there because the point structure requires covering a lot of events. The way it works now is whoever can get the most people there regardless of talent will win and the advantage will go to the sprint oriented clubs. That's probably OK because it's not like the sprint clubs make a showing at club cross.

Well yeah, scoring well at any competitive track meet involves covering a lot of events... I do think we should drop the relays from five to three though.

Keith Stone wrote:

(100% projection)

Got self-awareness? Congratulations, you finally have my pity now.